Ohio, et al, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.(D.D.C. 2002); see also In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the drug company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. (BMS) wrongfully maintained a monopoly on Taxol, a drug for which the Plaintiff States alleged Defendant fraudulently filed a patent. BMS’s alleged wrongful action delayed entry into the market by generic competitors of the drug, resulting in higher prices for Taxol. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlemen, a patent arrangement involving the drug Plavix. The company pleaded guilty to lying to the FTC and the states recovered $1.1 million in fines.

Read More →

New York et al. v. Reebok International, Ltd; 1995-1 Trade Cas. 71,558 (CCH), 96 F.3d 44, 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Reebok International Ltd. (Reebok) and The Rockport
Company (Rockport) conspired with certain dealers to set the minimum retail prices at which retailers were permitted to sell Reebok and Rockport women?s athletic footwear to consumers.

Read More →

Florida, et al. v. Nine West Group, Inc. and John Doe, 1-500, 80 F. Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); No. 00-CV-1707 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2000)

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Nine West Group (Nine West) conspired with unnamed dealers to set the minimum resale price at
which retailers were permitted to sell women’s dress shoes to customers.

Read More →

In the Matter of GSI Commerce, Inc.

Alleged restraints by provider of e-commerce services on prices and advertising on the Internet.

Read More →

In re Towne BMW, In re Holtz House of Vehicles, Inc.

Alleged collusion, market allocation, and price-fixing between dealers of BMW automobiles in upstate New York.

Read More →

In the Matter of Investigation of Simon Property Group, Assurance No. 17-154 (Aug. 21, 2017)

New York entered into a settlement with Simon Property Group that prohibits Simon from using anticompetitive tactics to thwart the development of competing outlet centers in New York City. Simon agreed to immediately modify contractual restrictions that have prevented retailers at Woodbury Common center from opening outlet stores in New York City locations. According to the Attorney General, Simon had monopoly power in the market for retail space in outlet centers in the New York City area. The investigation also confirmed that many retailers at Woodbury Common wished to open additional outlets in New York City, but were largely prevented from doing so by so-called radius restrictions in their leases at Woodbury Common. These clauses typically restrict retailers (by threat of a substantial penalty) from opening a second store within 60 air miles of Woodbury, creating a vast 11,000 square mile zone in which Simon faced little effective competition from other outlet centers. In addition to a $945,000 monetary payment to New York State, Simon agreed to revise existing leases to remove radius restrictions that would otherwise prevent outlet center development and for the next 10 years, Simon has agreed to cease using radius restrictions, or other exclusionary tactics, that might deter retailers from opening additional outlet stores. Simon has also agreed to the appointment of an independent monitor to ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement. To be overseen by the Attorney General’s office.

Read More →

New York v. St. Francis Hospital, 94 F. Supp.2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), No.98-Civ. 0939

Plaintiff state of New York, alleging that two hospitals in Dutchess County, New York, were engaged in illegal price-fixing and market allocation through joint rate negotiations, sued for injunctive relief.

Read More →

New York v. Urethane Applicators, Inc.; No. Cv 94 2705 (E.D.N.Y.).

New York sued several roofing contractors on behalf of the state and its political subdivisions, including the Connetquot Central School District on Long Island, for injunctive relief, civil penalties and treble damages, alleging bid-rigging and market allocation.

Read More →

New York v. New York State Society of Ophthalmic Dispensers, Inc., 1980-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 63,074 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979)

Plaintiff State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, New York State Society of Ophthalmic Dispensers, Inc., boycotted eyeglass lens and frame manufacturers that participated in pre-paid vision care plans.

Read More →

New York v. Service Corporation International, 99 Civ. 11391 (JSM) (S.D.N.Y. final judgment, Nov. 19, 1999)

New York challenged a series of acquisitions that Service Corporation International (SCI) made of funeral homes in New York City that serve the Jewish community, allegedly leading to monopolization of and high prices in that market. The matter was settled by a consent decree requiring SCI to divest a funeral business in Manhattan, Plaza Memorial Chapel, plus two funeral homes in Brooklyn.

Read More →